Melvin Durai
If you’ve been watching the 2026 FIFA World Cup, you probably noticed something different about this year’s matches. About 22 minutes into each half, the referee blows his whistle, and the players take a three-minute hydration break. Three minutes is just the right amount of time for players to replenish their fluids, a much-needed addition, and for beer-guzzling fans to run to the bathroom for a much-needed subtraction. “For every game, no matter where the games are played, no matter if there’s a roof, (or) temperature-wise, there will be a three-minute hydration break.
It will be three minutes from whistle to whistle in both halves,” Manolo Zubiria, chief tournament officer, USA, for the FIFA World Cup 2026 said last December in announcing the initiative. He made his announcement at the World Broadcaster Meeting in Washington DC, where all the broadcasters were excited to know that FIFA had prioritised player safe ty by creating two long breaks for commercials (ads). As expected, football purists have welcomed the hydration breaks with as much zeal as a Saudi sheikh welcoming electric cars.
Many have expressed their displeasure on social media, saying that the hydration breaks ruin the natural flow of the game. “The hydration breaks are just farcical. We’ve completely changed football so FIFA can show a few more ads,” Daniel Hussey, sports presenter for Ireland AM, wrote on X. I don’t know if the hydra tion breaks have “completely changed football,” but how else can you explain Germany scoring 7 (one touchdown in American football) against Curaçao? The score was 1-1 before the first hydration break, then things “completely changed” as Germany scored six more goals. “Take nothing away from the German performance, but the hydration break killed Curaçao early momentum,” Gary Al-Smith of SportyFM Ghana wrote on X. Indeed, without the hydration break, Curaçao might have lost by on ly fi ve goals. (Did the players drink too much during the hydration break? Or not enough?) More than hurting one team’s momentum, what the hydration breaks do is reduce the importance of physical fitness. Endurance is a big part of football, and there is nothing quite like being in football shape. I played recreational football in my younger days and know what an advantage the most physically fit players have.
They would just dribble past me in a flash, whereas I’d have trouble dribbling past Lionel Messi’s statue. World Cup players previously had to keep moving for 45 minutes or so, but now it’s down to 22 minutes. Imagine asking marathon runners to take a three-minute hydration break after 13 miles. Runners get their fluids at water stations while continuing to run.
Football players can do something similar. “I’ve never been a fan of the hydration break because it disadvantages the team that’s in better shape,” writes Cathal Kelly of Canada’s Globe & Mail. “I’m not against hydra tion. They can stack water bottles at the touch line. Anyone who wants one can come get a drink. I’m against the idea of a full breather for the team that’s losing.” What makes people skeptical of FIFA’s motives, believing that the organisation is more concerned about commercial opportunities than player safety, is the institution of hydration breaks for all games, even those played indoors in ideal temperature. “Maybe an exception could be made in exceptionally hot conditions,” Kelly writes. “Some sort of wet bulb temperature threshold that’s universally applied. But not just because the sun’s out.” Indeed, referees should whistle for hydration breaks only in these circumstances: i) The temperature is above 30 degrees Celsius. ii) At least two players from each team have collapsed on the field. iii) Curaçao has no momentum.
Orissa POST – Odisha’s No.1 English Daily
